Cheryl Plummer v Stephen Flattery

The court may adjourn an application and require further evidence where there are serious concerns that court proceedings are being conducted by, or for the benefit of, persons subject to restrictions on litigation or connected with suspected abuse of process. The court’s inherent jurisdiction includes power to protect the integrity of its own procedures and to require a party to establish the authority of its representatives, the authenticity and provenance of documents, the basis of its interest in property, and relevant connections between parties and entities. Where the evidence is incomplete and the advocate lacks instructions on issues expressly identified in prior directions, an adjournment may be appropriate rather than immediate dismissal.

The claimant, described variously as Cheryl Plummer LP trading as Cheryl Plummer and Cheryl Plummer, applied to set aside orders made in proceedings concerning possession and control of a property. The proceedings appeared to overlap with earlier proceedings brought in the name of a natural person with a similar name. The court had previously made a general civil restraint order and had regard to an order under section 42 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 concerning Leslie Gayle-Childs.

The evidence concerning the claimant’s authority, ownership of the property, assignments, and connections with other entities was incomplete and internally inconsistent. The central issue was whether the proceedings were connected with, or controlled by, persons within the scope of those restrictions and whether the court’s processes were being abused.

1. Disposition. The application to set aside the orders was adjourned. It was not dismissed because the court considered that it had an interest in determining whether its processes were being abused and whether the proceedings fell within the scope of the general civil restraint order or the order under section 42 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 ([36]–[37]).
2. Inherent jurisdiction. The court may act under its inherent powers to protect its own processes where there are serious concerns that proceedings are being brought by entities connected with, or controlled by, a person subject to litigation restrictions. That power may be exercised alongside procedural case management powers and may justify requiring further evidence before deciding the application ([36]–[37]).
3. Required evidence. As a condition of the adjournment, the claimant was required to provide a verified witness statement addressing the authority of Mr Feraud or any other representative, the filing and authenticity of two materially different assignments and an agreement of transfer, the apparent signature discrepancy, the date and basis of the claimant’s alleged interest in the property, any proceedings brought before that interest was acquired, and the connections between the relevant individuals and entities ([36]).
4. Reason for the order. The court considered the unexplained duplication of proceedings, inconsistent documentary evidence, accommodation addresses, corporate connections, and the representative’s lack of instructions on matters identified in the directions. Those matters gave rise to serious concerns that the proceedings were in substance controlled by Leslie Gayle-Childs or Cheryl Plummer ([20]–[37]).
5. The court would consider the further statement before deciding how to proceed. A copy of the judgment was directed to be sent to the Attorney-General because of its relevance to the section 42 order ([37]–[38]).